C A V ORDER

1. By this petition petitioner has questioned the order of transfer dated 16.11.2022, whereby he has been transferred from P.C. No. 4 Pahanda, Tahsil – Patan to P.C. No. 63 Gatapar, Tahsil – Patan, District – Durg with additional charge of P.C. No.51 Surpa.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that transfer of petitioner is in violation of transfer policy. According to transfer policy transfer of district cadre employee is to be made from 16.08.2022 till 10.09.2022. Order of transfer of petitioner is issued on 16.11.2022, therefore, order of transfer of petitioner is issued in ban period. Petitioner is posted at P.C. No.4 Pahanda on administrative ground vide order dated 18.01.2022, whereas according to Clause 1.5 of transfer policy, employees, who are posted at place on or before 15.08.2021 only to be considered for their transfer. Hence, there is violation of Clause 1.5 of transfer policy also. He also contended that according to Rule 7 of Chhattisgarh Bhu-Abhilekh Niyamawali, transfer of Patwari is to be made on proposal sent by Tahsildar through Superintendent Land Records and in case of petitioner, no proposal is forwarded by Tahsildar and therefore, there is violation of Rule -7 of Chhattisgarh Bhu-Abhilekh Niyamawali. He next contended that according to instructions issued by State Government dated 12.09.2014 power to transfer the Tahsildar, Naib Tahsildar, Revenue Inspector and Patwari within the District is with the Collector, whereas, order under challenge is issued by Sub- Divisional Officer (R) Patan, District – Durg. Order transferring petitioner by Sub-Divisional Officer (R) is without authority. Transfer of petitioner is in mids of academic session. Child of petitioner is studying in Class-III and if petitioner is to join at the transferred place of posting, studies of child of petitioner will be adversely affected. In support of his contention, learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Director of School Education Vs. O.

Karuppa Thevan, reported in 1994 SCC Suppl. (2) 666. In view of grounds raised in the writ petition, impugned order dated

16.11.2022 be interdicted.

3. Learned State counsel opposing the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner would submit that in view of instructions issued on 12.09.2014, transfer policy 2022 with respect to revenue officials will not apply. Transfer of petitioner is within the Sub-division Patan and petitioner is transferred from one Patwari Halka to another Patwari Halka in same sub-division. Sub- Divisional Officer is competent to transfer Patwaris within Sub- Division is also held by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 478 of 2019, Manoj Vishwakarma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, decided on 11.11.2019. There is no merit in this writ petition and is liable to be dismissed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available in record.

5. So far as the submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that order of transfer is issued in ban period, in violation of transfer policy issued by the State Government dated 12.08.2022 is concerned, the order of transfer under challenge is of Patwari, who is a revenue officials and his appointment is made under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code, 1959’). Section 22 defines Sub-Divisional Officer, which reads as under :-

“22. Sub-Divisional Officers. - (1) The Collector may place one or more Assistant Collectors or Joint Collector or Deputy Collector in-charge of a sub- division of a district or in-charge of two or more sub-

divisions of a district.

(2) Such Assistant Collector or Joint Collector or Deputy Collector shall be called a Sub-Divisional Officer and shall exercise such powers of a Collectors as the State Government may, by notification, direct.”

6. Section 24 of the Code, 1959 talks about conferral of power by State Government of revenue officers on o